-------Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics? Lester: No

Are you saying that feeling pain is a flaw? Feeling pain can prevent further damage to the individual. If we didn't feel pain we might leave our hand on that hot stove, causing serious damage, vs just a minor burn because we can feel pain.

Quote from FreeAmerican at 11:05 PM on April 21, 2003 :If you think your God actually intentionally made such a nightmare world, then such a God is a monster. He is a cruel, vindictive, merciless monster. Can you put your trust and faith in the monster who intentionally designed childhood brain tumours, flesh shredding hyenas and wild dogs? How do you know it what you believe (without reason) that such a terrible God is not lying to you?

That's remarkably silly reasoning. That's like saying the makers of the stove were cruel, vindictive, and merciless monsters because people burn themselves on it.

We live in a universe with both atoms and light. In order for this universe to function high frequency light (Gamma level) is occasionally going to be produced. Since life is made up of the most basic and common elements it's not going to stand up well to Gamma rays, and so our cells may turn cancerous.

It is either that, or live in a universe with out light or atoms (impossible as that is), or base our biology on very rare atoms high on the periodic chart (also very unfeasible).

Tumors aren't the result of a capricious evil God, but simply the cost of living in a universe as perfect as ours is.

We live in a universe with both atoms and light. In order for this universe to function high frequency light (Gamma level) is occasionally going to be produced. Since life is made up of the most basic and common elements it's not going to stand up well to Gamma rays, and so our cells may turn cancerous.It is either that, or live in a universe with out light or atoms (impossible as that is), or base our biology on very rare atoms high on the periodic chart (also very unfeasible).

Your reasoning is flawed. Google "false dilemma" and get back to us when you have a valid point to make...I hope this helps.

Quote from Zarda at 3:04 PM on July 27, 2008 :. . .We live in a universe with both atoms and light. In order for this universe to function high frequency light (Gamma level) is occasionally going to be produced. Since life is made up of the most basic and common elements it's not going to stand up well to Gamma rays, and so our cells may turn cancerous.

It is either that, or live in a universe with out light or atoms (impossible as that is), or base our biology on very rare atoms high on the periodic chart (also very unfeasible).

Quote from Zarda at 9:57 PM on July 27, 2008 :

Quote from fredguff at 5:19 PM on July 27, 2008 :Your reasoning is flawed. Google "false dilemma" and get back to us when you have a valid point to make...I hope this helps.

That's not a false dilemma, that's a fact of physics.

Google... the sun, light, atoms, gamma rays all of which will say exactly what I just said. Please come back when you know something about the universe you live in.

(Edited by Zarda 7/27/2008 at 10:24 PM).

Ummm, I don't think I'd count on a very exact match to what you're saying from any respectable Google hit. While you might have some bits of validity mixed up in there, you could use some research too.

-------Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics? Lester: No

Quote from Apoapsis at 11:50 PM on July 27, 2008 :Ummm, I don't think I'd count on a very exact match to what you're saying from any respectable Google hit. While you might have some bits of validity mixed up in there, you could use some research too.

I know the research. Basics of light...

Light is a combination of an Electric Wave and a Magnetic wave. Light (as is everything in the universe) is both a particle and a wave.

Way back when the atoms were first being formed all of them were hydrogen, get enough hydrogen in one place and it turns into a star. Stars operate by nuclear fusion, in which four hydrogen atoms are joined to create an helium atom, then helium atoms are joined and so on up through the periodic table.

Interesting thing when elements fuse the new atom contains less mass than the combined atoms that created it. This missing mass is released as a high frequency light wave (X-ray). Yes, the only light our sun actually produces are X-rays. Fortunately since our sun is so large the X-rays interact with many many atoms allowing them to gradually loose energy to Fluorescence, allowing for everything from the X-Ray section of the EM spectrum to the Radio section.

When an EM wave strikes an electron it will push it out of (or into) a different Atomic shell. When the electron hops back it will release an EM wave which is how light gets reflected off all objects and into our eyes. Of course the electron doesn't have to jump back to its original position. If it makes a smaller jump then it will release a weaker EM wave, a bigger jump and it will make a more energetic EM wave.

Of course X-Rays aren't the top of EM spectrum, Gamma rays are. Gamma Rays are produced by sub-atomic particle interactions, particularly the process by which atoms are formed in the first place. Gamma rays (X-rays do this to a lot of things too) are so energetic that they knock the holy hell out of whatever happens to come in their way, which can cause great damage to whatever that happens to be. If you've ever taken an X-ray in the hospital you've seen this in action. The X-rays are projected onto a photosensitive paper that turns black on exposure. X-rays go right through flesh, but not bone. Gamma rays go through bone as well. Fortunately, all things considered, there aren't that many Gamma Rays in the universe. But every human on Earth is hit by one about every six seconds (which isn't often considering the near constant bombardment by most EM waves.) Gamma Rays will go through a human like a hot knife through butter. You have to find high density material (and very thick) in order to shield from Gamma Rays. Gamma Rays striking a human cell can result in mutation or cancer (as do X-rays).

Which brings me back to my original point. If the top of the EM spectrum is removed, it would mean that all light is kaput. As well as probably all atoms. Not to mention X-rays do similar things, but without which we would have no sunlight.

The other option is basing large amounts of our biology on high density elements such as lead. As it stands our biology is based upon Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Carbon, and the reason that is, is that those elements are way down the periodic table, among the first things stars fuse. Therefore they are in enough supply to sustain populations. Requiring enough lead in our bodies to shield for gamma rays would severely limit the population of life to a mere handful.

So in the end, tumors as a result of Gamma Rays are simply the cost of having a universe that works as well as ours does. And it is, amazingly enough, not a false dilemma. You can either have light in all it's verity or you can't.

In physics we consider a gamma ray to be produced from a nucleus while an X-ray is produced from an electron changing energy states between the orbitals of one atom. The energy ranges overlap, although gammas tend to occupy the higher energy ranges.

-------Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics? Lester: No

You are limiting your God to certain parameters that fit the universe as you know it. Why couldn't your God supercede these "laws" of the universe and design cells that are imune to whatever causes cancer? Moreover, if he/she/it is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why wouldn't he/she/it create immune cells?

Quote from fredguff at 12:51 PM on July 28, 2008 :You are limiting your God to certain parameters that fit the universe as you know it. Why couldn't your God supercede these "laws" of the universe and design cells that are imune to whatever causes cancer? Moreover, if he/she/it is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why wouldn't he/she/it create immune cells?

Actually I already told you why cells aren't immune to cancer, it was that whole bit about the impracticality of shielding from Gamma rays..but I'm assuming this is a "why isn't God a magical leprechaun?" argument.

If God wanted to superceeding them he could, but then they wouldn't be laws. Our universe would implode into total entropy. Either the laws of physics exist or they don't, and with out them there isn't a consistent universe for us to live in.

Actually I already told you why cells aren't immune to cancer, it was that whole bit about the impracticality of shielding from Gamma rays..but I'm assuming this is a "why isn't God a magical leprechaun?" argument.

Man, all you do is create these false dichotomies: "Either gamma rays must be cancer-inducing or our entire universe will fall apart."

You're not even trying, are you? A third option is quite simple: Cells can soak up all the gamma rays they want and still not become cancerous. Or how about cells become cancerous initially but our body has a defense mechanism to prevent the condition from becoming lethal?

If God wanted to superceeding them he could, but then they wouldn't be laws.

Well, yeah? Simply that our universe would be different because God made the laws of our universe differently doesn't make God unable to do it.

Our universe would implode into total entropy.

I see. Yet somehow God broke the laws of physics and made Mary pregnant, and here we are. You do realize that every time God intervenes on a level above quantum chance that he's breaking natural laws, right? Making a man walk on water defies nature. Parting the sea defies nature. Causing bushes to undergo spontaneous combustion for no physical reason defies nature. Turning someone into salt defies nature. Bringing Jesus back from the dead defies nature. There are probably thousands of examples in the Bible.

Either the laws of physics exist or they don't,

Not true. It's also possible that the laws of physics could be different.

and with out them there isn't a consistent universe for us to live in.

This is assuming, once again, that the laws of the universe are completely thrown out the window instead of merely tweaked.

Yet somehow God broke the laws of physics and made Mary pregnant, and here we are. You do realize that every time God intervenes on a level above quantum chance that he's breaking natural laws, right? Making a man walk on water defies nature. Parting the sea defies nature. Causing bushes to undergo spontaneous combustion for no physical reason defies nature. Turning someone into salt defies nature. Bringing Jesus back from the dead defies nature. There are probably thousands of examples in the Bible.

Why is it that god no longer does any of these big miracles or interventions now that we are at a level that we can accurately record, share, and analyze them? It seems pretty convenient that he just stopped once we got to a level where we could.

Actually I already told you why cells aren't immune to cancer, it was that whole bit about the impracticality of shielding from Gamma rays..but I'm assuming this is a "why isn't God a magical leprechaun?" argument.

No actually it is just a way of establishing that your god is limited by engineering constraints.

If God wanted to superceeding them he could, but then they wouldn't be laws. Our universe would implode into total entropy. Either the laws of physics exist or they don't, and with out them there isn't a consistent universe for us to live in.

I could see how superceding these "laws" might create problems for a god with limitations. And if your God is constrained by the laws of the universe then I can start to understand why so many of his "creations" are clearly not evidence of optimal design.

Quote from camaroracer214 at 11:07 PM on September 20, 2005 :well the coccyx is definitley not vestigal and isn't the remnants of a tail.

Wrong and wrong.

Quote from camaroracer214 at 11:07 PM on September 20, 2005 : show me where our ancestors had a tail. neandertals didn't have one, neither did other primitive men.

Yeah, and chimps don't have a tail, and neither do gorillas, and neither do orangutans: that's one reason all of these closely related species are grouped together as Great Apes. To look for a human ancestor that had a tail, you'd have to go "lower down" the tree of life than the Great Apes.

And what do you know? Essentially all other primates and mammals have tails.

Quote from camaroracer214 at 11:07 PM on September 20, 2005 : also, the tail bone, or coccyx, serves a purpose.

Vestigial does not mean functionless.

Our coccyx is vestigial since in our ancestors it was a full sized tail. And sometimes, rarely, a human is born with a postanal tail.

Human embryos form a postanal tail, just like a pig, a chicken, a mouse, and a cat embryo does. But in humans, during further embryonic development, the number of tail vertebrae is reduced and resorption occurs, leaving us with just a vestige of a tail ... our coccyx.

Quote from aspazija at 01:48 AM on October 12, 2006 : Yeah, and about female urinary opening to close to the asshole...Where do you, FreeAmerican, suppose the poop has to come out from? my leg? i am a female and in my many years of pooping and peeing no infection has occured. Sorry for my, maybe, inappropriate, language, but your flaws are funny to read.

I'm wondering why it was the human female's anatomy "down there" that was mentioned as poor design.

Women have 3 exits: 1 for the digestive system, 1 for the urinary system, and 1 for the reproductive system.

On the other hand, men have only 2 exits, with 1 of them serving double duty (urinary and reproductive systems). So wouldn't it be the male anatomy that would be poorly designed?

And we should all just be glad we are placental mammals, as otherwise, we'd most likely have only a single opening to the outside to serve all 3 functions! Imagine having sex with that setup!

Fear, pain, hunger, itch, cold, death... Those are great things to have for a highly developed species.

According to creationism we couldn't have those in the Garden Eden, because there was no reason.

So evolution is the only reasonable answer.

If evolution never happened, and Adam and Eve enjoyed perfect conditions in the Garden of Eden, why do we have all of those?

Did God put those in us beforehand because He knew Adam would fail?

Did the Devil put those in us? If that's the case, thanks, Devil.

And thanks for the knowledge too. And the pleasure. I'm with you, man.

-------

Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread Scientists assert (by Lester):Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.

porkchopWould we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?

"Fear, pain, hunger, itch, cold, death... Those are great things to have for a highly developed species. "

Yet it is a flawed program. Pain relievers are common place because of headaches, muscle pains, etc. Sometimes it would be better off if we could have "selective pain" and be aware that something is "amiss" yet we have no control over it. Sometimes we have psychosomatic pain, or pain in parts that are functioning fine. Fear is also detrimental in some states. Things like Xenophobia, etc come to mind.

"According to creationism we couldn't have those in the Garden Eden, because there was no reason"

If creationism only adheres to the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. IS this true?

"So evolution is the only reasonable answer."

Evolution is only a reasonable answer because it has standed up to the rigorous scrutiny of science. Should another theory arise that disproves evolution then it would become an obsolete theory.

"If evolution never happened"

If the theory of evolution became obsolete by the scientific method, it would not automatically make the book of Genesis true.

My 2 cents:The theory of evolution has been observed and tested in Biology, Genetics, and is the foundation of modern medicine. Like the theory of relativity, this theory continues to change as we continue to advance technologically. Because of this theory, we are able to produce better crops, save animal populations and soon enough we may create fast food that is more healthy than unprocessed foods. Because of this theory, we are able to continue to better ourselves. While evolution does not mix with the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, it does not make religion itself obsolete to mankind. Science can help us understand how we got here, and how we develop, and how we can better ourselves. However, science can never tell us why we're here, what our purpose in life is, nor can it define objective morality. In the long run, one must rely on philosophy to answer questions science cannot.

Yet it is a flawed program. Pain relievers are common place because of headaches, muscle pains, etc.

Indeed.

Hunger is also flawed. It evolved in a hungry environment. High energy food was a good thing.

Even self consciousness is flawed. It sometimes leads to suicide.

Sometimes it would be better off if we could have "selective pain" and be aware that something is "amiss" yet we have no control over it.

Yes, yes... But the human is a weird animal, and would do many nasty things to itself if it wasn't for pain.

Every kid would dismiss the "amiss" alert, and pierce himself for the sake of fashion, and there would be lots of casualties.

According to creationism we couldn't have those in the Garden Eden, because there was no reason

If creationism only adheres to the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. IS this true?

By "Creationism" i mean "Young Earth Creationism", which is pretty reasonable given that we're posting in a forum about creation vs evolution.

Evolution is only a reasonable answer because it has standed up to the rigorous scrutiny of science. Should another theory arise that disproves evolution then it would become an obsolete theory.

Not necessarily. I mean, Relativity didn't make Newton's theories obsolete. Just updated.

If evolution never happened

If the theory of evolution became obsolete by the scientific method, it would not automatically make the book of Genesis true.

Right. That's why my entire suposition was:

If evolution never happened, and Adam and Eve enjoyed perfect conditions in the Garden of Eden

So what's your point?

-------

Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread Scientists assert (by Lester):Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.

porkchopWould we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?

Quote from Guest at 11:00 PM on April 23, 2003 : If you rebelled agianst the government and pushed away the rules of it and created your own society because you didn't want to submit, wouldn't your children end up paying sometimes as well? Yes, because you decided that you didn't need the covering of the authority.

Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread Scientists assert (by Lester):Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.

porkchopWould we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?

Quote from EMyers at 11:03 AM on September 7, 2005 :Which myths? Someone was alluding to what the Bible said and trying to make a point with it. I simply clarified what the Bible said about it so that they could make their point from an enlightened point of view. I'm simply stating what the book they are quoting has in it. I'm not giving it credence one way or the other in this post. If you'd like to make comments on my other posts that question evolution or the authenticity of the Bible as a legitimate source of information, please post them there with your specific arguments and I'd be happy to look at them. Here, in this context, I have no idea what you are asking.

Well before you go off and rant about the bible, might I ask how accurate it really is? Based on the findings of the Dead Sea scrolls, and to the unbiased researcher, the English translations do not hold up to the originals. Now I do understand that the bible holds some good intentions and can help you lead a morally driven life, but why does that make it correct? It's full of mythology, and it’s strange you don't believe in the stories of Odysseus if you believe the stories from the bible. Man is clearly not ten thousand years old. The earth is not ten thousand years old either. Based on scientific reasoning with the use of the most technologically advanced tools we can assume the earth is much older than what the bible says it to be. So at this point I must ask, would you like to be rational and scientific? Do you want to believe a book that’s been translated multiple times from very difficult languages? The choice is up to your level of intelligence but i ask you to please question everything about your faith my friend. For i love and care for you. Not because some deity told me to either.

Quote from Guest at 9:06 PM on April 17, 2003 :Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't heart attacks caused by the 'stupidity' of the immune system? The artery wall begins to get some cracks and immediately white blood cells cram in there to form a clot, causing a heart attack.

Well according to Christians god got a little angry and cursed all of humanity when he (for some strange reason) put a special kind of tree in the middle of the garden and told them not to eat. They ate it cause a serpent talked to them. Somehow i am not sure. And the weird thing is God apperantly sent demons onto our earth when they had a dispute in heaven with lucifer. So god sent the demons down to our earth of divine living so that we could be corrupted to carry out gods plan? I'm not sure...

Quote from FreeAmerican at 11:05 PM on April 21, 2003 :If you think your God actually intentionally made such a nightmare world, then such a God is a monster. He is a cruel, vindictive, merciless monster. Can you put your trust and faith in the monster who intentionally designed childhood brain tumours, flesh shredding hyenas and wild dogs? How do you know it what you believe (without reason) that such a terrible God is not lying to you?

That's remarkably silly reasoning. That's like saying the makers of the stove were cruel, vindictive, and merciless monsters because people burn themselves on it.

Right.

But the people who make stoves do not force people to burn themselves or others on it, or to sacrifice their children in it, for purposes of proving that they believe in the power of the stove to cook their food.

Nor did the stove makers slaughter all those who own stoves as well as all other animals because a few people got rid of their stoves and purchased microwaves.

Nor did the stove makers place silly dietary restrictions on all those using stoves.

Nor did the stove makers order that children and pregnant women in towns where people use microwaves be killed.

And so on.

-------Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."

Yet somehow God broke the laws of physics and made Mary pregnant, and here we are. You do realize that every time God intervenes on a level above quantum chance that he's breaking natural laws, right? Making a man walk on water defies nature. Parting the sea defies nature. Causing bushes to undergo spontaneous combustion for no physical reason defies nature. Turning someone into salt defies nature. Bringing Jesus back from the dead defies nature. There are probably thousands of examples in the Bible.

Why is it that god no longer does any of these big miracles or interventions now that we are at a level that we can accurately record, share, and analyze them? It seems pretty convenient that he just stopped once we got to a level where we could.

Isn't that amazing?

I am reminded of those little girls in Mexico about a hundred yeas ago who claimed to have regular visits from the 'Virgin' Mary. They became quite a phenomenon, people started basically worshipping them. Then some reporters and skeptics showed up to document it all. The girls lead a huge crowd to where the visits were claimed to take place, the time came and went and nobody saw a thing, but the girls claimed it still happened. Most people dismissed them as kooks or hoaxers. But a handful of "faithful" (i.e., stupid/weak willed. gullible/ insane) believed them anyway.

Same as today.

-------Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."

Quote from aspazija at 10:30 PM on October 11, 2006 : The function of the appendix according to SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. COM is to expose white blood cells to the wide variety of antigens or foreign substances present in the gastrointestinal tract and so on...to be continiued on design flaws.

We have lots of lymphoid tissue in the intestines. The appendix does have some. But in other species, the appendix is huge and is actually part of (rather than just something attached to) the cecum. Thus, it is reduced and altered in function in us. Which means it is a classic example of a vestigial structure.

-------Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."